Gun Ownership and the Tiahrt Amendment

[ParanoiA]

For example, I consider myself pretty "gun-friendly," but I still resent the NRA, because I think they constantly overstate the case and withdraw from any reasonable compromise, and I think they so so intentionally to prolong conflict. They remind me of PETA.

 

I used to hold that against them as well, until I considered the incremental nature of the state. It's only a reasonable compromise today. Twenty years from now, the next "reasonable compromise" would be an even further reaching regulatory consequence - until a 'reasonable compromise' becomes soft rubber bullets for soft guns over hard rubber bullets for soft guns - while the criminal element still enjoys cold steel revolvers. So, I actually appreciate the long term intent behind standing against anything and everything the state attempts. Sorry, but laws only grow, they don't shrink.

 

Gun laws are only obeyed by people who obey laws anyway. Criminals, by definition, choose to ignore laws. If your concern is to regulate guns within the law abiding citizenry, then gun laws are great. Otherwise, its misguided and immoral. People must be allowed to build tools to protect themselves from things the state cannot - at the very least. And right now, the state cannot get to my house within seconds of a home invasion. After we're dead they do a great job, though.

 

As for why liberals in general tend towards gun control, I don't really think it's about international opinion.

 

I actually don't think that's the main reason, I was really just being more flippant about what I see as a bad trend - the need to be ego stroked by Europe. I do think today's liberal admires Europe and aspires to be like them. And I do think american liberals are ashamed of their "unsophisticated" foils - the redneck republican element. In a way, I can relate, as I'm quite put off by my wife's family - they live 10 or more to a house, no toothbrush is welcome, don't add up to a 6th grade education and they have no idea how stupid they are.

 

But I think their resistance to guns is more like how you put it. It's an ideological thing rooted in that "common sense" tone they take with so many things - some of which are not 'common sense', but rather just seem like it (like Torture - it only seems like a simple common sense dilemma). Not that I'm picking on them, republicans are bad about this as well - see their appeals to Global Warming - it's all about how silly it sounds to presume man can change the climate. A small minded dismissal based on convenient logic.

 

Specious reasoning is talented at disguising itself as simple common sense.

[iNow]

Why is gun control such an important issue for the political left?

 

Sisyphus hit the nail on the head. The answer is, it's not. It's a wedge issue presented by the right... and you acknowledged the motivation for this yourself when you said "Politcally it has been a persistent loser for them."

 

I'm relatively sure most of you would classify me as left leaning politically, yet gun control is not an issue for me. I'm an owner, actually. I live in Texas, and it sort of comes with the territory. I'm guilty of it too, but we really need to stop with these ridiculous generalizations we all keep making.

 

 

And ParanoiA - You think they want Europe to admire them? Really? That's... erm... how do I say this nicely? That's just stupid, and an obvious mischaracterization of the true motivations underlying those who support gun control. It's a ridiculous attempt to play on that classic ignorant American attitude and mentality that "we're better than the snooty Frenchies."

 

You suggested you were just being flippant, but you seem truly to believe it as judged by your next several comments. Perhaps I'm wrong, though. I dunno. Do you want to have a duel to settle this like men, or are you happy arguing like a girl with your gossip and high school put downs?

[ParanoiA]

And ParanoiA - You think they want Europe to admire them? Really? That's... erm... how do I say this nicely? That's just stupid, and an obvious mischaracterization of the true motivations underlying those who support gun control. It's a ridiculous attempt to play on that classic ignorant American attitude and mentality that "we're better than the snooty Frenchies."

 

Ah, maybe you need to read my post again, because I created a logical partition between those paragraphs, in that the first is my belief in the left's general desire for approval by European governments and societies. The second is my honest take on the liberal committment to gun control - I think they believe it's a common sense thing, like Sisyphus said.

 

Perhaps I'm wrong, though. I dunno. Do you want to have a duel to settle this like men, or are you happy arguing like a girl with your gossip and high school put downs?

 

How about we do this like girly-men and gossip about our duel?

[iNow]

I'd rather gossip about the plusses and negatives of the European system so we can incorporate the knowledge to improve our own, but if we can wear pajamas then I'm in!

[SH3RL0CK]

I don't think it is a particularly important issue for the left, actually. It's mostly a wedge issue for the right, and I get the feeling that's the way the right likes it.

 

If it isn't important for the left, then why is it the right can use it as a wedge issue? Wouldn't the left simply abandon whatever specific issue becomes the "wedge" between themselves and the public at large rather than alienate said public?

 

To keep bringing up more and more gun control laws (or in this case making such possible at the local level) indicates that indeed this is an important issue for the left. Or, I believe, it is a very important issue for specific groups (but not all) of the left.

[padren]

Well, for a quick cross section of a few things that lefties often believe in:

 

* Health care quality

* Education

* Wealth Gap

* Death Penalty

* Progressive union labor

 

We rank rather low compared to European countries in those categories (and first world nations in general), and so it's understandable that if those are the values that matter to you then you'll be embarrassed by how badly we "fail" at them.

 

If course, we only "fail" as a liberal nation because (no matter how many times you have to tell this to a liberal) we aren't a failing liberal nation we are moderate (perhaps a little more to the right) nation.

 

 

We do need to address some of those issues regardless of ideology (health care, education) and some others may be best solved by liberal, moderate or conservative approaches. But if you are a die-hard liberal, you are going to view the US as a distressed liberal nation, being held back by anti-progressive conservatives. So I think you are kinda right ParanoiA - but it's more correlation than causation.

 

 

As to gun control itself, there are a few issues that even I get concerned about:

 

1) Theft of firearms due to home invasion when owners are away

2) Criminals caught with illegal guns that can't be proven as illegal who are released and go on to commit crime.

3) Self/Family/Friend injury/fatality statistics in gun owning households

 

Being a permanent resident, I can't own a gun yet but I do plan to when I get citizenship. The best way around issue #1 that I can see is keeping a firearm in "home defense mode" (ie, not in a safe) when home, but always locking it when out of the house.

It's been a while since I read up on the statistics, so I don't know how they sit, but I would really like it if the issue could be addressed openly without fear of a "creeping agenda" by the left to ban all guns.

2) No idea how much this comes up, it may be very rare but gets play for the emotional effect... but if it is a legitimate issue I am open to regulation assuming it doesn't unduly impact law abiding gun owners.

3) Keeping a gun locked when a child is home alone may help - but I guess a parent can decide that. I knew a kid who died at a friend's house when his buddy showed him his dad's gun, so my experience is kind of skewed. I really have no idea how to mitigate the "bad neighbor" effect.

 

If it isn't important for the left, then why is it the right can use it as a wedge issue? Wouldn't the left simply abandon whatever specific issue becomes the "wedge" between themselves and the public at large rather than alienate said public?

 

I think the gun issue is an effective wedge for the right because there are a lot of "social libertarians" that get mixed in with the "social liberals" and this issue is very good at polarizing these camps, where they usually end up working together without much trouble.

[Sisyphus]

If it isn't important for the left, then why is it the right can use it as a wedge issue? Wouldn't the left simply abandon whatever specific issue becomes the "wedge" between themselves and the public at large rather than alienate said public?

 

It doesn't really work that way, though. The point of any wedge issue is not to "win," as then it becomes useless as a wedge. With the exception of a very small minority, most American Democratic politicians are trying to abandon it as an issue, falling over themselves to prove they're friendly to gun rights. But being willing or even eager to compromise doesn't mean they'll just agree to anything. And the gun lobby will just keep moving the goalposts until they're demanding things that enough of the left won't agree to that they can plausibly villify them.

[SH3RL0CK]

This wasn't initiated by the gun lobby, it was initiated by Obama.

 

If the American left is trying to abandon any gun control issues, why is Obama taking this action when he could have simply done nothing? Unless he really has a belief that this is the right thing to do. Its not like this was a high profile issue (though it could now become one), and with the current economy and other problems he must address, I think his political capital would be better spent elsewhere.

 

I really don't see the gun lobby moving the goalposts...the anti-gun crowd seems to be the ones initiating most of the new laws regarding guns. And with the exeception of the passing of the Tiahrt amendment, these are almost invariably more restricitive regarding gun ownership (keep in mind that I consider conceal-carry laws via a license/registration as more restrictive as I read the 2nd Amendment permitting that without any registration). But of course, that is just my opinion.

[Mr Skeptic]

The best child proof mechanism is the immediate death of the gun owner if a child gets access to the gun and someone is hurt.

 

I think that showing a child what a gun does to a cute furry animal will childproof all guns from that child?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

All most kids today know about guns is what they learn playing video games (where, b.t.w. it is impossible to really get hurt or really hurt someone). This does not provide them with the proper respect for guns nor with the understanding that reals guns are not toys and should NOT be played with.

 

This is the context for my previous post, I am not heartless.

[Pangloss]

Well I disagree with Sisyphus and iNow on gun ownership being an important part of liberal politics. It's not a "wedge issue from the right", it's an ideological cornerstone. I do agree that it's not being pursued at the moment due to the plethora of more important issues on the table.

 

That doesn't mean it's important to every liberal, of course. But the left is much better organized and encompassing when it comes to keeping issues on the agenda and maintaining unity amongst disparate groups that ostensibly have nothing to do with liberalism or specific issues. Mothers Against Drunk Driving has a position on global warming, for example, and it seems like every day I get a position statement from the Center for Inquiry on equal pay for minorities or gay marriage or whatnot. This sort of thing happens on both sides of the political "aisle".

 

But no, that doesn't mean that all liberals are in favor of gun control. I'm sure Gloria Steinem would have you believe differently (gun control being very important to the advancement of women somehow, you see), but she doesn't speak for everyone (or really even all that many).

[waitforufo]

I don't think it is a particularly important issue for the left, actually. It's mostly a wedge issue for the right, and I get the feeling that's the way the right likes it. For example, I consider myself pretty "gun-friendly," but I still resent the NRA, because I think they constantly overstate the case and withdraw from any reasonable compromise, and I think they so so intentionally to prolong conflict. They remind me of PETA.

 

Sisyphus hit the nail on the head. The answer is, it's not. It's a wedge issue presented by the right... and you acknowledged the motivation for this yourself when you said "Politcally it has been a persistent loser for them."

 

I'm relatively sure most of you would classify me as left leaning politically, yet gun control is not an issue for me. I'm an owner, actually. I live in Texas, and it sort of comes with the territory. I'm guilty of it too, but we really need to stop with these ridiculous generalizations we all keep making.

 

Gun control certainly functions as a wedge issue. Many people who lean left politically are indeed gun owners and or support firearms freedoms. Those that lean politically right (Republicans) are certainly going to exploit the missteps of their political opponents (Democrats) for electoral advantage. Creating, promoting, and supporting gun control legislation or repealing gun ownership protections (Tiahrt Amendment) does indeed open a wedge opportunity. So why is Obama doing it? I believe that was in part the point of Bascule's OP.

 

As I mentioned in my last post "For the last 4 if not 8 years the majority of the political left has recognized that this is a third-rail issue for many voters." In other words, gun control cannot function as a wedge for the Democratic Party if they don't work to reduce gun freedoms. Again, from the OP, they just can't seem to help themselves.

 

With regard to the NRA, it ranks all politicians with regard to their support of firearm freedoms. There are currently several A rated Democrats. The NRA strongly encourages there members to vote for these candidates. As I mentioned, the NRA strongly encouraged Washington State voters to vote for then speaker of the house Tom Foley (Democrat) right up to the point where he voted for the Brady bill. Tom Foley's defeat in the 1994 Congressional elections made him the first sitting Speaker since 1860 not to win re-election to Congress. By the way, that same year, Republican John Kasich from Ohio, another politician with an NRA A rating also lost his seat in the house. Need I further mention Bob Dole, an A rated NRA politician lost his election bid for the presidency after voting for the Brady bill. I mention all this because the NRA works hard to bring down any politician that does not support firearms freedoms, particularly turn coat politicians. They are quite good at it.

 

With regard to hunting, it has nothing to do with our second amendment guaranteed right to bear arms. The second amendment is about personal protection from both criminals and tyrants (see Heller). I bring it up because of the quote below.

 

… what kind of a person takes pleasure out of shooting animals? Isn't that just sadistic, by definition? Or, taken to a topical extreme, what kind of person's idea of entertainment is shooting wolves from a helicopter?

 

I don't know Sisyphus's life circumstances but I would guess that life circumstance does not include farming, ranching, or wildlife management. Enjoying a steak is just taking pleasure out of killing animals by proxy. Sport hunters have and will continue to bring many benefits to the United States. They are too numerous to mention here, and can be easily discovered with little effort.

[Sisyphus]

Well, maybe you're right. Maybe it is important to some part of "the base" that I'm admittedly out of touch with, like the "but think of the children!" crowd. But the fact remains that in every national election I can remember, the Democratic candidate goes to great lengths to show he "supports the rights of hunters" or whatever and make himself seem moderate, while the Republican throws up the NRA battle standard. The Democrat tries to pretend there really is no significant conflict, and the Republican tries to exaggerate it as much as possible.

[iNow]

By no means am I suggesting that this approach is the most effective way of accomplishing it, but in response to the question of "why is Obama doing this?" I offer that he is desperately trying to find a way to decrease the senseless mowing down of young people in inner cities while allowing more responsible parties to maintain and use their weapons.

[ParanoiA]

By no means am I suggesting that this approach is the most effective way of accomplishing it, but in response to the question of "why is Obama doing this?" I offer that he is desperately trying to find a way to decrease the senseless mowing down of young people in inner cities while allowing more responsible parties to maintain and use their weapons.

 

Oh, well if he's trying to do that, I would start by eliminating the market that empowers the "mowers". Try legalizing victimless crime and see how impotent they become. I don't see too many black market beer pushers on the streets in KC.

[john5746]

I think that showing a child what a gun does to a cute furry animal will childproof all guns from that child?

 

Interesting that you say that. I have a personal story in regards to this. My dad retired from the Air Force and decided to do the Green Acres deal and live on a small farm(non-working) in the Tennessee Appalachians. Having a gun and driving a tractor before age 10 was the norm in that area. I got a shotgun for my 12th birthday and my older brothers had .22 rifles all on display in the basement. I did hunt occasionally, but did not like it. I knew how dangerous guns were.

 

I had a model airplane collection that I kept downstairs in a makeshift room in the basement. One day, one of my dogs got to them and destroyed most of them. I was so upset that I took one of the .22 rifles and started to load it with a shell and shoot the dog. I was so irate that the shell got stock and delayed my intentions. My mom heard me and came downstairs to ask what I was doing. I'm not sure if I would have done it if not for the jam, but I sure was pissed. Ironically, I did use that same gun to euthanize both of my dogs years later on break from college. They were very hurt from fighting themselves and other dogs while chasing a female and they were pretty old by then. I was glad to be able to easily put them out of their misery.

 

People can be well trained, but they still have emotions that can override them - especially kids. Anytime you see a kid throwing things or hitting someone, you can imagine what might occur if they have easy access to a gun. Guns are a tool to make killing very easy. It is very naive to think that people will always be rational, especially with drugs floating around. I do wish America didn't have the gun culture and really the violent culture we now live with. But, we have it and I guess we must live with it. That doesn't mean we need to keep on acting as though guns are as important as life itself.

[waitforufo]

But the fact remains that in every national election I can remember, the Democratic candidate goes to great lengths to show he "supports the rights of hunters" or whatever and make himself seem moderate, while the Republican throws up the NRA battle standard. The Democrat tries to pretend there really is no significant conflict, and the Republican tries to exaggerate it as much as possible.

 

So if a politician said he supported the rights of opera singers, would you then assume he supported the freedom of speech? Would you even think he was talking about freedom of speech? Well, now you know how a firearms rights advocate feels when some politician says he "supports the rights of hunters."

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

By no means am I suggesting that this approach is the most effective way of accomplishing it, but in response to the question of "why is Obama doing this?" I offer that he is desperately trying to find a way to decrease the senseless mowing down of young people in inner cities while allowing more responsible parties to maintain and use their weapons.

 

I appreciate this answer, but in a free society, not all problems have a solution. When choosing between freedom and safety, most will choose freedom.

Edited January 23, 2009 by waitforufo

[DrDNA]

We have a saying here that people who own a gun have the biggest chance of being shot. (Not by their own gun... but pulling a gun usually triggers a response. If you don't have a gun, you cannot get this response, and you might walk away from the scene, a few dollars poorer, but alive). Could that also be true in the USA? Or are you shot faster, because people expect you to have a gun?

 

Well, there's your problem

 

"Pulling a gun" should trigger exactly two responses

1. pointing the gun and

2. firing gun

in rapid succession.

 

If [you've] got time to wave it around and try to scare somebody with it, [you] certainly have time to run away; which would save everybody, especially [yourself], a lot of misery.

 

Facts:

-The police absolutely can not (and in many cases will not) protect you.

There isn't enough of them (and there never will be) and they are busy writing tickets and responding to dogs barking anyway.

-YOU and only you can protect yourself and your family.

-In states where the law has changed to "shall- issue", the violent crime rate has dropped significantly

http://www.womenandguns.com/wfn/lott.html

 

""Somewhere around 0.8 to 2.0 million violent crimes are deterred each year because of gun ownership and use by civilians. In addition, another 1.5 to 2.5 million crimes are stopped by armed civilians. There may be some overlap in these two categories because of the ways in which the data are collected, but there are almost certainly some two to four million fewer completed crimes each year as the result of civilian gun ownership.""

http://saf.org/LawReviews/SouthwickJr1.htm

 

When "the lion lies down with the lamb", I'll happily throw mine in the river.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

For instance, if someone were to break in my house, I don't get my gun and go hunting for them - that's stupid. No, I dial 911 and hand the phone to my wife as I get up to get my shotgun and then get to the kids so we can retreat back to our bedroom and hold up until the police arrive.

 

Not me!

1. I don't go get the gun. It is on nightstand next to me.

2. I shoot the SOB immediately and repeatedly before he can get to the kids' room(s).

3. The gunfire will wake up the wife and she can call 911 while I keep my eye and gun on the perp in case he ain't dead enough.

4. I kick and stomp on his body to make sure he won't be getting up anytime in my, my wife's or my kids' lifetime

5. The police arrive and then and only then do I go wander around

 

What do you think he's going to be doing while you are fumbling for the phone in the dark, and trying to dial, waking your wife, going to get your gun, and sneaking around the house and/or retreating?

Edited January 23, 2009 by DrDNA
Consecutive post/s merged.

[ParanoiA]

What do you think he's going to be doing while you are fumbling for the phone in the dark, and trying to dial, waking your wife, going to get your gun, and sneaking around the house and/or retreating?

 

I won't be fumbling the phone, it's on my night stand and I can simply toss it to her as I'm taking my step to my opened gun cabinet (with my keys inside) to retrieve my shotgun as I proceed to the hallway to wake my boys while I stay drawn on the hallway entrance - the only passage way. I figure to stay in that position until the authorities show up.

 

It's not as much movement as you're thinking. Our kids are just across the hall, both wake to my voice by custom since I'm their alarm clock. It's just a few steps and I'll have a barrel on that hallway. The crack of that shotgun will send a terrific message about my intent, particularly when I follow it up with my pre-arranged testosterone packed Eastwood style one liner that gives them their options.

 

I like all of that better than shooting my dad, who got drunk and drove to the wrong home. Or my son, who was trying to sneak back in with his friends, but it was one of his friends that I ran into in the dark first. Or..any number of scenarios. I prefer to play a defensive role and just be Dirty Harry when they choose the wrong option.

[waitforufo]

Oh, well if he's trying to do that, I would start by eliminating the market that empowers the "mowers". Try legalizing victimless crime and see how impotent they become. I don't see too many black market beer pushers on the streets in KC.

 

Criminalizing victimless behavior is a form of tyranny. Tyranny generally leads to violence in the populous. In response to this violence, tyrants generally attempt to disarm the populous through additional tyrannical laws. Generally they give the same reason for disarming the public. "It's for your safety."

 

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - B. Franklin

[Sisyphus]

when I go from yellow to red and shoot the perp (3 in the chest, followed by 1 in the groin and 2 in the head)?

 

Obviously you have never shot a shotgun at a squirrel that your extremely drunk buddy used as a crutch in a muddy field the night before.

 

Well, there's your problem

 

"Pulling a gun" should trigger exactly two responses

1. pointing the gun and

2. firing gun

in rapid succession.

 

Not me!

1. I don't go get the gun. It is on nightstand next to me.

2. I shoot the SOB immediately and repeatedly before he can get to the kids' room(s).

3. The gunfire will wake up the wife and she can call 911 while I keep my eye and gun on the perp in case he ain't dead enough.

4. I kick and stomp on his body to make sure he won't be getting up anytime in my, my wife's or my kids' lifetime

5. The police arrive and then and only then do I go wander around

 

Is anyone else surprised that DrDNA hasn't managed to kill anyone yet?

[SH3RL0CK]

Is anyone else surprised that DrDNA hasn't managed to kill anyone yet?

 

No. Where in his statements did he say he was trying to kill someone?

[ParanoiA]

Is anyone else surprised that DrDNA hasn't managed to kill anyone yet?

 

What makes you think he hasn't?

 

Seriously though, I think the point he's trying to make is that you don't take a gun out to play with it, you take it out to shoot it. The people that get hurt from escalating a situation by pulling their weapon, tend to be people that didn't really want to shoot it, but rather thought that brandishing it would end the conflict and they wouldn't be challenged to actually use it. Most criminals are far more willing to indulge in violence than law abiding victims so wielding your weapon is not good enough in a close confrontation, like a mugging - you must use it, immediately. Or else don't pull it out at all.

 

As far as home intruders go, I disagree with his kill-the-perp plan. Oh, I have no issues in killing an intruder, but I think hunting them down in your house is a bit too Hollywood.

[Sisyphus]

No. Where in his statements did he say he was trying to kill someone?

 

I wouldn't expect it to be intentional, actually. Maybe I'm just not used to having guns around, but it seems like if somebody is drunkenly wandering around in a field with your shotgun, some aspect of the gun safety rules must have broken down somewhere along the way. The whole gun on the nightstand, quickdraw, shoot first and ask questions later attitude seems a little too cowboy to me, too. Seems like if I acted that way I would have ended up killing roommates' girlfriends, etc., but again, I've never even fired a gun, so I'll leave that call to people with more experience.

 

Seriously though, I think the point he's trying to make is that you don't take a gun out to play with it, you take it out to shoot it. The people that get hurt from escalating a situation by pulling their weapon, tend to be people that didn't really want to shoot it, but rather thought that brandishing it would end the conflict and they wouldn't be challenged to actually use it. Most criminals are far more willing to indulge in violence than law abiding victims so wielding your weapon is not good enough in a close confrontation, like a mugging - you must use it, immediately. Or else don't pull it out at all.

 

That seems right.

 

As far as home intruders go, I disagree with his kill-the-perp plan. Oh, I have no issues in killing an intruder, but I think hunting them down in your house is a bit too Hollywood.

 

As does this.

[DrDNA]

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

What makes you think he hasn't?

 

As a matter of fact, several years ago, I had an intruder in my home in the middle of the night.

Thankfully, I was able to grab my child (3 yr old) and escape to a neighbor's house, where we called 911.

The police were there in minutes and hauled him away.

 

I had an easy opportunity to kill the scum bag.

All I had to do was squeeze the trigger.

Furthermore, I would have been completely justified in killing him.

 

But I chose option number one, which is ALWAYS the best defense when it is possible.....my feet.

 

BTW: When seconds matter, the police are only minutes away.

Edited January 28, 2009 by DrDNA
Consecutive posts merged.

[Pangloss]

Wow. Good call. Forget the scumbag, I'm guessing you wouldn't have liked what killing him would've done to you, or, god forbid, your daughter. I'm glad you were able to get out of that situation safely and peacefully.